tv [untitled] December 29, 2010 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
rose, it will be handled separately. >> very good. what has been requested is the remaining balance of 1,873,500 for the moving forward of the program in 2011. as supervisors low -- most likely no we issued an rfp this year and we did receive responses and was asked to affect the bids in the questions that we thought were more important.
those responses were due on september 10. those funds fall into two broad categories. the first is the negotiation efforts that we will undertake with the highest ranking firms. the second is doing the outreach efforts that we think will be important to the community, of provided to every customer in the program as well as general marketing when we thought we would get an onslaught from the incumbent utility. saying things that are not necessarily true. so, the budget analysts office as i understand it has
recommended the release of funds for those negotiations but not for the opt out process. from our perspective that would just require us coming back again and asking for another release of reserves. in terms of operations moving forward we do not have a problem as it is presented. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose? >> on page nine-nine of the report be pointed out that the issue was selected tuesday rfp for a selection of an -- of a service provider in 2010. mr. campbell reports that on november 3, they did submit proposals and planned to evaluate those proposals to select the energy provider. we stated on page 10 of our
report in the recommendations, we have three. the first is that we recommend you reduce the amount from 1,000,873500, covering the estimated cost of the city attorney's office for budget negotiations to select preferred energy service providers. second is that the balance should continue to be reserved by the budget and finance committee pending board of supervisors approval and a new contract between the city and selected energy provider to operate the aggregation program pending the provision of the budget and finance committee with background and experience on the selected energy provider and details on how the program will be implemented with an announcement of renewable energy proposal rates and a total
program costs with financial liability issues. so, the total was placed on reserve. that was pending the status report on the program. as of the writing of that report we have not seen that status report. they have not submitted it to the board of supervisors but we did just receive something today and i would say that the committee is satisfied with that report. we would recommend the release of the $430,000. if the committee is not satisfied, we consider this a policy issue for the board. supervisor avalos: supervisor? supervisor mirkarimi: mr. campbell? did this matter come before the puc commission? >> no, it did not appear supervisor mirkarimi: you are
aware -- you know, it did not. supervisor mirkarimi: you are aware of the meeting this friday? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: why was this matter brought to us now when it was not released or analyzed by it their own commission coming out this friday? >> it is just the way the wheels work, as i am learning. i had sought to get those funds released several months ago. so that we would be in a good place. i was thinking along the timeline of what be expected to have back on november 3. as you know, the negotiation process is 1 maketh, if the last round was any indication, is a 60 hour per week effort. i wanted to make sure that i was being prudent and that funds
were released in advance. there were many questions from the budget analysts office. it has taken two months to get here. we had thought this would be handled previously. supervisor mirkarimi: understood. i appreciate the fact that in this go around we have companies like shell, tempura, constellation, our choice, well stella >> that is them. supervisor mirkarimi: it requires a certain amount of -- who else? >> that is them. supervisor mirkarimi: it takes a certain amount of processing, i understand. but as prudent as they would like to advance in funds to assist in that endeavor we do not have to plan ourselves as the budget analysts reported.
the report was submitted yesterday and today. i would rather not release the 1.8 -473,000 in its entirety right now. i would like to release part of that. one of you tried to strike a figure that works for you. >> a number less than what the budget analyst is suggesting? per my opening remarks, we can make that work. supervisor mirkarimi: strictly $430,000. >> we will need to have the full court press for marketing. but in terms of making sure we have the resources that we need with a contract that works --
supervisor mirkarimi: what is the bottom line that you can live with? >> it is hard to judge what is going to be involved in a negotiation process before i even know what the final package looks like. the way that i would characterize it is that my best guess on what it would cost is that some number of lower than that, if we see that we are running up against the limit of the budget by would need become back to this body to seek additional release. that is just a staffing resources issue based on the number of times we want to come back. supervisor mirkarimi: we get that it is a chore. >> it is perfectly fine and part of the oversight role and we are not suggesting otherwise. supervisor mirkarimi: to get
through this, when would you have to be back here again to get the remainder? >> the remainder, as i understand in the budget analysts office recommendation, we would come back for that at the time when we had a contract that was firm but with that the supplier. that would go towards marketing efforts and we would probably want to begin to keep the wheels moving so that there is no delay and start actually working on the process of that release as we were 90% of the way they're so that once the contract was drafted we will already have the wheels in motion for speaking with customers. supervisor mirkarimi: conditional to the idea of the two will satisfy the setting of the existing bettors right now, i would like to add to the menu of bidders.
we have asked this before. it needs to assign itself potential bidders, which is themselves. in the vein of the puc, how can they carry out the actual facility ave third-party company. not just the private sector. my fear is a drawdown on the dollar's before us on companies that may not materialize in the way that we would like. we would therefore have exhausted the funds that we have on this repartee that we are going through now. what do we have to show for it? other than going through the drill. part of the bases in this particular case is that we need to be party to the question -- what can we do that the company cannot?
supervisor mirkarimi: yes, i believe that that is part of the meeting agenda for this friday. supervisor mirkarimi: friday i will expect that that is what will be given a rest as well? giving the release for this, it has to be part of the question for future reserve releases. i want to know what the pic's role in this is. what you as a potential actor can be in case no company meets our standards. >> very good. supervisor avalos: we can open this item for public comment. >> ♪ joy to the water world july
8 to bringing it to the center of the world joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea joy and bring it to the puc july 8 to the water world joy and bring us in a big water world joy to the fishes in this deep blue sea bring this item to you and money ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: please step up. >> good morning, commissioners. matthew, "in those days john the baptist came to judea because the kingdom of heaven was coming. from that time jesus began to preach and say repent because the kingdom of heaven is and
hand. bear with me. if you confess and believe that god has raised you, you will be saved. corinthians, 12-3. supervisor avalos: sorry, is this referencing the release reserve? >> yes, sir. therefore i make note that no one preaches by the spirit of god and jesus is the lord, sir. supervisor avalos: if you are not talking about the release reserve -- >> i will talk about the release reserve.
whoever confesses that jesus is the son of god, jesus is the son of god. supervisor mirkarimi -- supervisor avalos: your time is to talk about the release reserved. >> i have 26 seconds. please bring to justice the distinct cover-up of the case and contact myself. i am easy to find. thank you. supervisor avalos: any other member of the public? >> -[unintelligible] and i would -- my name is [unintelligible] and i would like to recommend that you released these funds to the community aggregation. we have had with pg&e. enough is enough and it is time
to give the citizens of this city justice. thank you. supervisor avalos: we are closing public comment on release reserve. supervisor mirkarimi: i will motion to except the provision on the condition of the future release of funds as party to the reporting to us its role in how it answers the question of did potentially being a prospective facilitator in lieu of a bitter. >> i want to specifically say that we are releasing only the $430,000, not the full amount in question. supervisor mirkarimi: sorry, i agree. supervisor avalos: taken without objection. that part of the reserve is released. >> the item is filed.
supervisor avalos: very good. the next two items? which have already been called? >> i am the manager for the water system program and i am here to present items 10 and 11. the requested action today to approved two resolutions authorizing be amended existing construction contracts with the approval for $3 million in the water improvement programs, adopting findings pursuant to both of these agreements. the existing agreement on the hill is a contract amount of 16
million, should you approve the resolution today, for the amount of 20 million. the operation would not change. the existing scope of the contract is to provide professional construction management services to oversee 5 of the program projects in the valley region. similarly, if you go to the next slide there is an amount that is currently $22 million and the revised amount should be approved as $26 million. again, no change to the duration. this existing agreement provides construction management services for eight of the program projects in the region.
they had proposed of the bio- habitat restoration approach based on biological resources resulting from implementation of the water system improvement program. developing and enhancing but lands and other habitats, providing the means to execute the first mitigation measures her and complying with regulatory permit requirements for the water system program. the additional scope of work for both their agreements as revised would be to add the additional construction management scope for construction management in nine peninsula habitat restoration
sites for dedication and restoration for the existing improvement program projects. these are typical construction management services. essentially we are doing the same scope that already exists on the traditional sites. at the time that the puc entered into the contracts, it had not yet been determined, the specific habitat restoration program needed to mitigate the impact of the water improvement system program. at the time that these agreements were executed, those sites were unknown. now that we have achieved the environmental review process, as well as the permitting process,
we have specific sites that the impact. therefore puc is proposing an amendment to the existing contract in the region for doing this additional construction management work. it provides the most expeditious approach to get this work done. you see a set -- a staff with skills but no face already working in the region. and so there is a seasonal nature to this work. making sure that critical requirements are met. >> during the presentation it is
this a secret process that identifies having additional services around. the water system improvement projects. supervisor avalos: do these managers have any other work within? >> for construction management, yes. supervisor avalos: were they during construction? >> not associated with construction, rather other design and chemical projects with different contexts. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose? >> members of the committee, on
page 10 or page 11 of the report be pointed out -- we asked a question first of all, solicitation of services would cost a total of $745,000. further going on towards the end of the page 7, it is the opinion that the puc that the most efficient option for habitat restoration with primary environmental monitoring with short duration as a result of
wildlife breeding cycles and weather patterns. if you have not responded to those questions at our office, we are satisfied in your recommendation of approval. supervisor avalos: very good. we can go on to public comment. making ♪ make the water better for you and for me. that is what i would say. i would like to better. fix it please. i can see the water at night.
in the dark i think it is time with water all of the way all around. that is all that one. will you not do that? please fix it. ♪ supervisor avalos: thank you. if there are no other members of the public, we will close public comments. taken without objection. moving on to the full board with a recommendation with adams -- items 13 and 14. >> item 13. hearing before the budget and finance committee to review the fiscal feasibility and
responsibility, including analysis from the budget analyst, of the city hosting the america's cup regatta under the conditions contemplated and set forth in the "term sheet" to fully understand and define the city's expectations for both the short term and long term benefits that would accrue to the city for the purposes of negotiating a formal host city agreement. item number 14. resolution approving a host city and venue agreement between the city, the america's cup event authority and the san francisco america's cup organizing committee; authorizing the mayor or his designee and the port to execute the host city and venue agreement; authorizing and urging the mayor, office of economic and workforce development, port and such other city officials as appropriate to take such steps and execute such additional agreements as are consistent with the host city and venue agreement and this resolution to bring the 34th america's cup to the san francisco bay; and finding that the proposed event is fiscally feasible as set forth in
administrative code chapter 29. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. very good. colleagues? good afternoon. good afternoon to everyone. this is the first time that the budget and finance committee has had a hearing on the prospect of hosting the america's cup race. earlier this year when mr. yellow sun had secured the, once for which was well supported by the mayor, registering our strong interest in competing for the prospect of hosting. it was not that long ago.
in a compressed manner of time parts of the city family have been working with moving forward in a press -- proficient and unique way. should america continued to win, be the whole overcome with strangulated compass readings on costs and benefits. we want to make sure that we absolutely set the direction in the right direction to make sure that san francisco and its
people benefit as well as we possibly can from this particular prospect. but i know that there were a number of colleagues here that had also been instrumental in the questioning as well as us moving in the direction of hosting the cup. but what of those in particular and in is the plan of the central waterfront. that is the plan that has been vetted the most so far with their guards to those are great